Last week I had
the opportunity to attend the Economics of Ministry Summit at Central Baptist
Theological Seminary in Shawnee, Kansas, “where all the women are strong, all the
men are good looking, and all the
students are above average” (to
paraphrase Garrison Keillor). The topic
addressed was far from humorous, however.
The key question voiced by President Molly Marshall was, “Can ministers and
churches afford each other?”
Many churches
are not supporting theological education as they once did, but theological
education is expensive, so students are burdened with debt. At the same time churches are struggling with
declining finances but still want full-time ministers but can’t provide
appropriate salaries.
If churches cannot provide a wage that helps
students to pay their indebtedness, can students continue to pursue theological
education? If students don’t prepare for
ministry, where will churches find competent ministers? Certainly, the problem is much more complex
than that, but you get the idea.
Here are some thoughts
that came to mind as a result of my participating in that meeting.
First, God is
still calling men and women to serve in local congregations, but they find it
hard to make a living wage there. Although
Jesus said, “for laborers deserve their food” (Matthew 10:10,
NRSV) with the implication that those who serve the Lord should be provided for
by those to whom they minister, churches often fail to supply the basic needs
of ministers.
When
one panelist at the event was asked about health care, she said she was
grateful that the Affordable Care Act (often called ObamaCare) provided her
health insurance. If it were not for this government program, she would not be
able to have this coverage.
Ministers deserve a living wage. If we don't care for those
in the household of God, how will we care for outsiders? (See Galatians 6:10)
Second, we as church members tend to underestimate and not
take advantage of all of our resources including property and people. One summit presenter did a great job of
pointing out that churches fail to see their physical resources—such as their
buildings—as venues for ministry, service to the community, and potential
income. She even said, “If your building
is a burden rather than a resource, get rid of it.” Others pointed out that
restructuring staff responsibilities, partnering with other churches to share
ministerial staff, and creating innovative ministries would help churches make
better use of their resources.
There are a number of creative alternatives available to churches,
but the truth is that congregations will only try them when they become desperate
and there is no alternative. They have
to be at the point of death to try something different. Why?
One reason is pride. If our church
has always had a full-time minister, going to a part-time pastor may be
considered embarrassing. Even if a church
is willing to adopt this approach, the members may be unrealistic and still
expect the same number of hours a week from a bivocational pastor.
If a church cannot afford a full-time pastor, members of the
congregation must come to understand that they—as the people of God—are one of
the most important resources available to the church. There is much that they ask the pastor to do—pastoral
care, administration, and supervision—that church members are well equipped to
do (if they are willing to).
The summit
pointed out that there is a crisis and it will not abate. If we hold on to our old paradigms about
economics and the use of the gifts that God has given us, we will fail to
fulfill the mission to which God has called us.
Mission is not about pride but about servanthood. If we can get rid of the first, maybe we can
practice the second more effectively.
Comments